Find Decisions

Latest decisions

Laurel Hubbard v Olympic Weightlifting New Zealand

04/17
· Decision 18 July 2017

Overview:

Appeal against decision of NSO – H appealed against decision of the Olympic Weightlifting New Zealand (OWNZ) Executive Group to not allow New Zealand weightlifting athletes to compete at the Pacific Cup International (PCI) competition held in August in New Caledonia – H challenged whether any NSO... could lawfully ban its athletes from competing at an international event to which they had been invited – H alleged harm occurred from not allowing New Zealand athletes to participate – OWNZ implemented nomination criteria that specified what events New Zealand athletes could attend – PCI was originally scheduled outside the scope of nomination criteria but was later moved forward – late notice of PCI event meant OWNZ decided it was not fair to allow some New Zealand athletes to attend while others might not be able to attend – athletes that could attend would have advantage over athletes that could not – decision by OWNZ was reasonably available - appeal dismissed

Sloan Frost v Motorcycling New Zealand

01/17
· Decision 22 May 2017

Overview:

Appeal against decision of NSO – F appealed against decisions of the Motorcycling New Zealand Judiciary Committee in relation to appeals brought by Tony and Mitchell Rees – the outcome of the appeals brought by Tony and Mitchell Rees changed the corrected results of Rounds Three and Four of the New... Zealand Superbike Championship resulting in F no longer being declared the NZ Superbike Champion – F, being an interested party to the appeals, was not invited to attend or present submissions at either appeal – interested parties should be able to attend and present submissions - parties agreed by consent F not afforded natural justice by not being invited to present submissions in appeals – appeal approved - Tony and Mitchell Rees appeals must be reconsidered by newly constituted MNZ Judiciary Committee

Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Michael Butson

16/18
· Decision 3 May 2017

Overview:

Anti-doping – Rugby league player (B) tested positive for prohibited substance higenamine in sample taken from him after a rugby league training session – provisionally suspended without opposition - admitted violation of Sports Anti-Doping Rules 2016 (SADR) Rule 2.1 and asked to be heard as to sanction... – positive test due to contaminated pre-workout supplement “The One 2.0” – unintentional use of specified substance – standard period of ineligibility two years under SADR Rule 10.2.2 – accepted B could establish no significant fault or negligence in seeking a reduction of the two year period under SADR Rule 10.5.1.1 –Tribunal assessed appropriate sanction having regard to degree of fault – Tribunal decided appropriate period of ineligibility was nine months – medium level of fault – contaminated supplement, purchased from Melbourne retailer – prohibited substance not listed on product label – trust in supplements resulted from previous experience of having a nutritional and supplement regime in professional environment – B’s personal life at low ebb and may have contributed to failure to take proper precautions – suspension backdated to date of testing – timely admission

Drug Free Sport New Zealand v Adam King

19/16
· Decision 3 April 2017

Overview:

Anti-doping – cricket player (K) admitted violations of Sports Anti-Doping Rules (SADR) 2014 Rules 3.2 and 3.6 and SADR 2015 2.2 and 2.6 – Medsafe investigation into NZ Clenbuterol including purchase of prohibited products by K in 2014 and 2015 - possession and use of steroids nandrolone and testosterone... in 2014 and possession and use of hormones tamoxifen and anastrozole used to address effects of steroids in 2015 - provisionally suspended without opposition - asked to be heard as to sanction – sanction for multiple violations based on violation with most severe sanction – changes to 2015 WADA Code / SADR – 2015 violations most severe sanction if DFSNZ proved to comfortable satisfaction of Tribunal that intentional – assessment of specific facts and credibility of K totality of evidence – meaning of “intentional” under SADR 2015 10.2.3 – no evidential basis to conclude K knew or turned mind to breach of SADR – Tribunal imposed period of ineligibility of 2 years – commencement back dated given delays not attributable to K and K’s prompt admission and co-operation